Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Grump
I think they thought the new 2257 rules would be allowed. Just like the new labeling proposal now in the Senate, The Internet Safety Act ( http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-6083983.html?tag=nl and http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/pdf/ne/20...tSafetyAct.pdf ) the goal is to make it tough for companies to be legal and compliant in this business, and easier for prosecutions to happen.
How many of us have time to go back and label every single page containing sexualy explicit content? Hell- I have AVS sites I haven't even seen since they were built back in the late 90s.
"It would impose up to 15 years in prison--an increase from the five years suggested in the original proposal--on any commercial site operator who fails to place "clearly identifiable marks or notices" prescribed by the federal government in either the site's code or on the pages themselves..."
This is another attempt to do what they can't do with new laws. As you (Paul) pointed out above, no law banning porn would pass yet they can make it almost impossible to stay in business and be legal. |
Well actually if my understanding of US law is right they can't make it impossible to stay in business. I think what they wanted to do was make it tougher for many and look like they were tackling the problem to their supporters. As far as the Internet is concerned I'm sure they know it would just be taking over by off shore sites, like with gambling.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Hammer
Everyone that was serious about this business in the first place found a way to comply with the law. The ones that folded either had no way to become legal, weren't true business people or weren't making enough money with their site to make it worth the hassle to comply. Either way, I say good riddance to them.
|
Exactly true.